Lance's Food Kept Secure During Tour
According to WFAA.com, Lance Armstrong's food during the tour was protected from tampering. I can't help but think of Landis accepting that six pack from the crowd after stage 16. What else did Landis accept?
I can be quite cynical and I have a sensitive bullshit meter, and for some reason, Landis still isn't setting off that bullshit meter. I like to observe facial ticks and other paralinguistic cues when people talk (I'm irrepressibly analytical I'm afraid). I've watched these interviews and my lie detector isn't going off. There are so many things that do make me suspicious, and I don't always trust either my analysis or my intuition, but usually at least one of them is right (usually the latter). I am pretty convinced that Tyler Hamilton doped and certainly would not be shocked to learn if Armstrong did. Armstrong has all the markings of a guy who lusts for power, who has a sort of age-old deep-seated anger that really drives him to achieve, to endure pain like no other. If anything that lust leaves me in awe. But Landis, despite being a Phonak cyclist with a pair of positive IRMS samples, my intuition is saying he didn't do it.
But then there's one thing that bothers me. Landis appeared to resist, almost seemed to fight against, holding the maillot jaune well before stage 16. That tactic seems suspect, namely because the jersey comes with extra testing.
I can be quite cynical and I have a sensitive bullshit meter, and for some reason, Landis still isn't setting off that bullshit meter. I like to observe facial ticks and other paralinguistic cues when people talk (I'm irrepressibly analytical I'm afraid). I've watched these interviews and my lie detector isn't going off. There are so many things that do make me suspicious, and I don't always trust either my analysis or my intuition, but usually at least one of them is right (usually the latter). I am pretty convinced that Tyler Hamilton doped and certainly would not be shocked to learn if Armstrong did. Armstrong has all the markings of a guy who lusts for power, who has a sort of age-old deep-seated anger that really drives him to achieve, to endure pain like no other. If anything that lust leaves me in awe. But Landis, despite being a Phonak cyclist with a pair of positive IRMS samples, my intuition is saying he didn't do it.
But then there's one thing that bothers me. Landis appeared to resist, almost seemed to fight against, holding the maillot jaune well before stage 16. That tactic seems suspect, namely because the jersey comes with extra testing.
posted by Patrick Herron at 10:15 PM
26 Comments:
does anyone know where I can find a copy of the leno segment online?
this has been said 1000 times, but this blog, and the comments forum has by and large, fostered the most objective and intelligent "debate" on this entire affair.
I don't even know where to start... The possibilities for conspiracy are seemingly endless. Please know that I don't normally buy into conspiracy theories, but there are any number of things that could have occurred the night before stage 17. Here are a few of my questions:
(1) Does anyone know who prepares the cyclist's recovery meals, or even what these meals consist of? I wouldn't be surprised if they took some nutrients via IV... and if so, who prepares that?
(2) Who watched over, prepared, and administered Floyd's cortisone injections?
(3) Who administers the team massage, and who "patrols" the massage lotions that are used? It's possible that a topical steroid could have been placed in the lotion.
(4) Where does Floyd get his sunscreen? Again... the possibility of topical steroids.
(5) Floyd took something like 75 bottles of fluids during his comeback stage... who supplies all these to the team car?
(6) Like the main posts asks, how many things did Floyd take from fans on the side of the road?
And finally...
(7) Who else was tested on stage 17 with Floyd, and who makes sure the samples are labeled properly? This may be the biggest piece of speculation yet, but didn't Oscar Piero perform a whole heck of a lot better than people thought he would once he had the yellow jersey? Is there any chance that HE doped and somehow the samples got switched?
Think about it: Oscar, a guy who was never supposed to win the Tour is suddenly in a great position to challenge for the title (something he was 20 minutes away from during earlier stages when he died in the mountains). He gains back 20+ minutes because the Peloton lets him and all of a sudden it crosses his mind, "Hey, with a little help I could win this thing."
It's ALL speculation. But "what if?"
San Diego computer entrepreneur Michael Robertson on Thursday offered Tour de France winner Floyd Landis $100,000 to "clear the air" and take a polygraph examination while addressing charges that he doped on his way to victory in the Tour.
Seems like a good way to help Landis if he didn't dope.
I think the objective person would say that we don't know whether he cheated or not. There are certainly large packs that are quite convinced that he is a guilty, dirty, lying, denying blight. And there are some fanboys who won't hear a word against him.
I think there are many people who would prefer to hope that he is clear, or at worst an unintentional victim of a harmless accident. If proven otherwise, we'll probably shake our heads sadly, as we've done with Tyler Hamilton.
@ nlstandford
(1) each team has a cook who prepares the food. The ingredients are guarded religiously - what Lance did was not uncommon.
(2) the team doctor does. All injections and medications are very tightly controlled by the team - for reasons one can only imagine.
(3) While the lotion may not be locked away, it is impossible to skew the T/E ratio using topical steroide application. Simply not enough testo gets in.
(4) see (3)
(5) The soigneurs prepare all the team bottles.
(6) Riders do not drink anything given to them by fans. They pour it over their heads. If a rider drinks something from a fan he exposes himself to a myriad of problems (laced drinks have been found roadside in the past - can you spell laxative?)
(7) The athletes seal their own samples and the samples are numbered, not named.
"What if" is all good and nice, but it's completely illogical and senseless. What if Floyd Landis is Tyler's vanished twin?
Landis cheated, there is simply no other explanation that holds any validity. Use Occam's Razor. It's painfully obvious.
I'm not even going to get into the "changing the defense" factor.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
There was a great article in Cycling Weekly (UK) last week about a woman who tested positive for testosterone several years ago and spent years trying to clear her name which she eventually did. The proved that the Portuguese lab mishandled her specimen and she came back 42 times over the normal parameters. Anyone who thinks that all scientific processes are infallible probably still believes pro wrestling is real.
The point here is that when an athelete's life work is on the line and events as prominent as the Tour de France or the Olympics are involved, shouldn't every possible precaution be taken? (like testing A and B samples in seperate labs? Like using the $300 test for exogenous testosterone?) Shouldn't these atheletes get the benefit of the doubt? Why is it so hard for some people to believe that science IS INFALLIBLE and the monetary risk involved in any possible exposure of that fallibility could drive a lab or other organisation towards corruption in order to protect or improve their own reputation? These guys DO and HAVE made mistakes which have been proven in a court of law.
Is it unusual? Yes.
Is it common? No.
- but it has happened.
Mike Papageorge, I'm not sure what the problem is with thinking aloud. This blog *isn't* a cheerleader section for Landis and this isn't a 'drugs are bad' site either. I think all reasonable considerations should be included. It is entirely reasonable to consider the tactic of avoiding the yellow jersey as suspect in light of the positive IRMS test.
Ottomark - Landis avoiding the yellow jersey during the tour is a fact, not a speculation. We all know he did not want the jersey when he could easily have had it; he admitted as much during the race. We also all know that the holder of the yellow jersey is tested at every stage he holds the jersey--another fact. Landis failed the IRMS--another fact. Putting the three together is what is commonly referred to as 'thinking.'
The sort of thinking here is essentially all probabilistic. Whenever a thought process depends upon information whose truth-value is between 0 (false) and 1 (true) we gotta make guesses. No test reports facts, only high indices of reliability. If we do not trust in high reliability we begin to throw away the very basis of science. Speculation, particularly speculation based on the synthesis of two or more relatively independent pieces of information, is an essential part of science. Mendel discovered genes before he or anyone else ever saw one. He speculated and imagined them, and gathered evidence that suggested genes, but he himself discovered genes without ever seeing them.
I would say that it is highly likely that he doped. Another reasonable yet far less likely possibility is that the secure chain of custody of Landis' samples was violated, either by accident or maliciously. Another less likely possibility is that someone does Landis unwittingly. And then on the very end of possibilities is the fact that there's a natural explanation to the positive IRMS result, that the IRMS simply resulted in a false positive while doing exactly what it's supposed to do: detect ratios of carbon isotopes. The three distinct and credible "Floyd is innocent" possibilities together make a basis for reasonable doubt. They also necessitate further examination.
ministry you sure are reasonable!
I think there is a really good suggestion in having a second lab become involved somewhere.
Doug Wong, I think what's being said here is that its entirely likely that Floyd got desperate and tried for the magic pill. What is equally being said is that there is enough cause for reasonable doubt to consider Floyd's protestation of innocence as possible. Perhaps not likely, but possible and due to that, open to debate and discussion.
I think one of the fundamental errors must folks make when they discuss doping is that testing catches every doper.
The argument that Landis "must have been stupid to take something that day knowing he would be tested" is faulty because it's based on wrong assumptions of the actual situation.
It is not the case that he doped only that one day and should have expected to be caught. Rather, he (like many others) dope regularly and virtually never get caught, because they know the tricks. Thus he expected NOT to get caught.
The sad fact is that testing does not work. Look at Armstrong, Ullrich, Basso, Millar. Millar never failed a doping test. Yet, he admitted to doping. Basso never admitted a doping test, yet he is on Fuentes' list. Ullrich and Armstrong both failed doping tests and did not get sanctioned, because it was explained away. Yet, it now looks like both of them were 'on'.
The "news" in this whole story is not that Landis doped. It is that he got caught. There is no doubt that others if not all in the top ten have medical help. You cannot ride the Tour at the current pace without medical help. The question is, when do you cross the line? There is a huge grey area (like the arbitrary limits of T/E 4:1 or Hemo 50).
Of all the winners of the grand tours of the last ten years only 1 or 2 are not charged with, under investigation, or even suspended for doping violations. That should tell you all there is to know.
Wake up people. Landis doped. If you can't see that then you are in huge denial.
Rob,
let me clarify.
"The sad fact is that testing does not work."
It does not work in stopping dopers. The tests are reliable and scientifically sound. However, the athletes have figured out how to cheat the tests. Doping is rampant in the pro peloton. The test, however, are not detecting it. Thus, they don't work in catching the dopers. Once there is a positive test, it's only because that particular rider has made a mistake in his regimen.
The tests work perfectly fine for what they're designed to do. They're just not designed to keep up with today's doping technologies.
Virtually the entire peloton uses ATP blockers (lactic acid blockers), allergic medications that widen the oxygen pathways (aveoli), asthma medication for the same reason. All these substances are legal if you have a prescription. Some riders use cortisone on prescription (Floyd), some are rumored to use steroids on description (Armstrong's med file has never been disclosed).
The illegal drugs one can use are steroids (like testo), EPO (to raise red blood cell levels), methamphetamines (to increase stamina and muscle performance), and the newer stuff like IGF-1 (insulin growth homrone) or HGH (human growth hormone).
In Landis' case, we're atlking Testosterone, a substance widely used in sports to build muscle mass (now often stacked in combination with HGH and IGF-1 to convert fat into muscles). That's what the baseball folks have been taking. Bodybuilders know all about it.
In cycling testosterone is widely used in patch form. Riders use a patch on their scrotum or testacles to receive a small amount of testosterone (these patches are medically used for hormone replacement therapy). The result is not one of muscle building. Rather the effect is a better and faster and more complete recovery of muscle fibers.
Testosterone attaches to certain receptors in the muscles that tells them to build. If the muscle is damaged, the building is essentially repairing (which is basically recovery). After a mountain stage and riding maybe an hour over lactic threshold (LT) the muscles have burned a whole lot of ATP and thus damaged themselves.
The testosterone will speed up the process of rebuilding the damaged msucle fibers. Some riders say that is doesn't help, others swear by it. Jesus Manzano, one of the whistleblowers in the cycling scene, says that testosterone works great for just that application.
Now, the patch application yields to little testosterone to skew the T/E ratio enough for a positive finding. Most likely that Landis used injected testosterone to help his recovery process.
Landis probably uses a number of techniques that are dubious - because almost all of them do. He used synthetic testosterone (which can be determined by the isotope test beyond any reasonable doubt despite reports to the contrary). It's carbon check, very effective.
He probably used the patch during the Pyrenees and again in the Alps. Had he stuck with that, he probably wouldn't have been caught.
But he bonked because of dehydration and the failure to fill the tank on the road (no carbs, no H20). He had a bad day and the patch from that night couldn't change that.
So here he is, the Tour is probably lost. He wants to make a statement the next day which means he has to recover well. So, he goes to the edge of what he thinks is possible and injects testo intravenuosly.
My very personal guess is that the dehydration from the day before screwed up his math. Or maybe he just took more than he should have. Or maybe he stacked it with something that increased the reading (the lab would not be allowed to allude to other substances found in his blood if they were under the limits).
As to the guilty first argument. There is a great article on velonews.com about how the process works. As soon as A and B sample are positive the burden of proof is with the rider to explain himself, as those samples are considered evidence.
The UCI is in Switzerland, by the way, and WADA headquarters are in Canada. The French lab is staffed by an international crew of scientists and all the tests are exactly the same in all WADA labs worldwide.
The samples are sealed in the trailer with the athlete present. There is a number on the sanmple, no name. The lab technician does not even know from which event or sport the sample is (although that would probably be pretty easy to guess).
The controls are not bad at all. I've been to the Tour and the secruity around the test trailers is very tight. Riders sometimes are required to wash their hands with antiseptic solution as though not to taint the samples (and because it is rumored that there is a red powder that allows riders to mask certain substances when they rub it in their urine).
By the way, UCI did not break its own protocol. The rules say that UCI may not release the name of a rider unless both samples are positive. THe UCI only released that there is a rider. The fact that it was Landis was released by Team Phonak.
Armstrong was shown to have corticosteroids in his urine in 1999, however, the amount was not in the positive range. Armstrong later submitted a certificate for a butt cream that could produce the result.
Also, in 2005, tests on archived samples showed that Armstrong had used EPO during the tour in 1999. Because these tests were scientific research and not doping tests he could not be charged with doping in the letter of the law. Scientifically there is no doubt that he used EPO in 1999 (all the arguments in the Vrjiman report are based on legal procedure not scientific procedure).
There are also former teammates of Armstrong who have testified or who have been recorded, stating that Armstrong blood doped and used EPO. Not to speak of all the other allegations in L.A. Confidential which I have not read.
Since there was not a good chain of custody of the 1999 "research samples", there is no reliable assurance that Armstrong did EPO that year, and along with no A sample, why the UCI could not do anything despite Dick's Pounding that they Do Something with the results.
To say that "Scientifically there is no doubt that he used EPO in 1999" is to say that there is no doubt from whom the samples came. Since the custody chain was not done for the research samples, we can't say that with absolute certainty, especially given the absence of any other provable evidence. We can suspect, but there is doubt. Enough doubt that it would be legally unwise to publish LA Confidential in the UK, having to answer to those libel laws.
I'm not going to say that these guys don't and haven't doped, and I don't yet know for fact what happened with Floyd. So far, the theories presented as mitigation don't sound plausible, but they haven't really been researched and clearly argued yet. It's dubious to leap to a conclusion yet. That's why there is a process.
It is fascinating in its way that there has been no comment from the giants who were full of praise before this blew up -- Hinault and Merckx. Why would that be? Perhaps know about doping, think it is ridiculous to complain, but know better than to throw themselves in front of the bus leading to the alter of public sanctimony.
rob o I never *asserted* floyd was doping on the basis that he avoided the yellow jersey. I reported my own reflection of a possible connection.
I think Landis likely did take testosterone; the likelihood of other explanations are very low. really the only area of exploration is diet; if he, for example, ate two bowls of millet cereal a day for a decade he might trigger a false positive on the IRMS. that's not so bizarre; I ate a millet cereal daily for the better part of a decade.
given the poor performance of the T/E test and the effect of taking E on the test it's a heck of any easy way to supplement for pros. why choose other more detectible methods of biochemical support?
landis is a competitor foremost, regardless of whether he's mennonite or zoroastrian, and competitors hate losing. cyclists have been on the bleeding edge of doping for decades. not shocking that another cyclist may have taken EPO or T or whatever.
regardless, the standards guiding doping need to be improved while the bureaucratic elements need revising or reconstructing. the theatrical bs must go. it appears that labs involved in testing regularly call for improvements to testing quality while the bureaucrats running these organization make the entirety of the process look idiotic. doping regulation is flawed, but then all regulation is flawed somehow. but to reject regulation because it can be wrong sometimes is to open the door to unchecked madness.
Rob-
points well taken. I wanted to throw out there that I don't believe that it was the testo that made Landis win the stage. It may have helped him recover a bit better, but it certainly didn't gain him all the time. That's the unfortunate thing. Had he taken a placebo, he may have won by just about the same time.
There are other cases, like Hamilton, where the doping can actually account for a win (blood doping being much more effective in increasing on bike performance).
But in general doping doesn't make you a superman. You still need to train hard and ride harder. It just adds that extra bit. Heck, when I ride and squeeze out a gel I certainly get a mental boost.
But... Landis got caught so his performance is tainted. As to Landis lying to his mom: if he is in denial, he may not be "lying". He may believe that he is innocent even though he took something. Let's not forget that these guys are incredibly strong mentally and have to suppress very bad pain. They're masters at denial.
Finally, a word about the French riders. With the Festina scandal French cycling got shaken up pretty bad. Why do you think the French suck so bad at their own race?
Doping, unfortunatley, is institutionalized in cycling, as it is in many other sports. Reports say that 25% of all amateur athletes dope - in an area where there is money or glory to win other than personal satisfaction. We've had these discussion on many rides. The pros in our club can only smile at the naivite of some of our members. They've all seen it.
@ trust but verify
The samples were tested anonymously by the lab to figure out whether old samples can be tested for EPO. It was a research test. No chain of custody was necessary because there would not have been any doping charges.
Furthermore, none of the scientists would have had any interest in "spiking" samples with EPO. The entire point was to find out whether old EPO can be deteced. These are world class scientists who work objectively in the name of science. And even if they wanted to spike a sample they wouldn't know which samples belong to which rider.
EPO was found. It is impossible for EPO to be in the samples now and not in 1999 (some have suggested that the EPO was created during the storage phase). The fact that some of the samples were positive got around and a journalist got hold of it.
Using investigative journalism techniques he got a UCI doctor to give him Armstrong's test protocols and matched the numbers of the samples.
Thus, it is scientifically sound to say that the samples contained EPO. It is extremely likely that these samples were given by Armstrong, although there is absolute certainty.
There is no way for this to be officially called doping or even to start an investigation, because the doping test protocols (like chain of custody and A/B sample) were not followed.
But for every sensible, logical, objective person the truth is quite obvious. Just like for Hamilton, who is still searching for his missing twin. And just like for Landis who will not find a way to explain the exogenous testo in his urine and instead attack the validity of the test and the protocol - like they all do.
TR - You seem to know a lot about this so please help me on this one. If they now tested Floyd's other samples for synthetic, would they find it (according to your earlier theory)?
I'm also curious if the maths add up. I heard the Carbon Isotope Mass Spectometer test indicated 3.99 per thousand. How does that equate when measured against the 11/1 T/E ratio? My impression was that a 3.99 in the CIMS test is a significant blip whereas the 11/1 T/E is an absolute train wreck of a reading. Should there be and is there any consistency between these readings?
Is there anything that could be done with the other samples that could possibly prove his innocence or at least cast serious doubt on the findings from the stage 17 sample?
Is there a completely independent lab that could be trusted to analyse such findings?
Can Landis' legal team get access to any of the actual samples?
@ Ministry
I'm not a biochemist by any stretch but we have one in the club who continuously updates everyone with the scientific side of things. Testo does have a half-life and decays in blood but I do not know whether that applies to blod samples (frozen or not).
If samples were to be tested a positive test would be positive, but a negative test would not serve as counter-evidence. There is now ay of knowing whether he took exo-testo on any other day.
As to your consistency between the T/E test and the CIMS reading - that's a great question. I have no answer.
Unfortunately if other, earlier samples don't show testo it will not invalidate the positive tests. Just because you have picture of yourself stopped at a red light for the last two years it doesn't mean that the one picture when you ran it, is false.
The WADA laboratory is considered completely independent. It just happens to be in France because there is an historical attachment ot the Olympic movement. I'm a bit upset at this U.S./French antipathy. It dosn't help anyone building it up. Pesonally, I couldn't care less about nationalities anyway, but that's just me.
"Can Landis' legal team get access to any of the actual samples?"
Good question. I'm sure they can, but they would be exposed to exactly the same "trusted/independent" argument. That's, unfortunatley, what it comes down to in these situations.
The WBUR talk show linked from TBV suggests the one-day effect could be entirely entirely psychological, like the stereotypical "roid rage".
By the way, TBV is now more of a link collection and less of a soapbox.
The question about whether a one-day dose of Testosterone would have helped Floyd or not is irrelevant. If he had been smoking pot before the stage, it certainly would not have helped his performance -- but it still would have been illegal. Such are the rules.
There are only a few possibilities here for Floyd's innocence.
(1) the CIR test was a statistical false positive. That is, by random chance alone he exceeded the test threshold despite a complete lack of exogenous testosterone. Of course this is not impossible but it can never be proven and there is absolutely no point in pursuing this line of defense.
(2) Floyd was tampered with, i.e. given a dose of testosterone as an act of sabotage. If it could be proven he would get off without a ban. It probably cannot be proven without an admission from the guilty party.
(3) Floyd's sample was tampered with. If it could be proven he would get off without a ban. I have been subject to numerous tests myself and I cannot conceive of any way that this could have happened before the sample was opened at the lab, so this would imply corruption at the lab itself. It is possible that a sample corruption could be proven if subsequent samples were tested independently (CIR test) and shown not to have exogenous testosterone and if the "half-life" of exogenous testosterone in the body is more than a few days.
(4) For some as-yet-unknown reason the carbon in Floyd's testosterone came from an exogenous but legal source. We know that it did not come from his long-term diet -- the CIR test proves that the carbon in his testosterone does not match the carbon in the reference hormone. Another commenter wondered previously whether the carbon in the cortisone he was (legally) taking might have been recycled in his body in such a way that there ended up being more of it in testosterone than in other hormones. I am intrigued by that theory and would like to hear from some experts about whether this is possible or not.
I am afraid that is what it comes down to. Either we need some new science, or you believe in an elaborate and deliberate sabotage -- one that the perpetrators were for some reason unable to execute against Lance Armstrong or anybody else of significance.
Also, I will point out that Pereiro was no patsy. He finished 10th in the Tour in 2004 and 2005.
And Dick Pound is not French-Canadian, whatever that is supposed to prove, although he does live in Montreal.
Floyd you really need to be honest and step up to the plate and confess/admit to your wrong doing. You were behind and out of DESPERATION you took a chance! You were hydrating constantly one after another, your fuel was the testasterone dope plus the fact that you were behind plus the pressure of remaining on the team plus the pressure of living up to Lance Armstrong's preference of you. What else, ego? We need to overcome that bullshit in this dope riddled sport...help it out some why don't you and be honest and end this so that you can get back. The sport calls for letting your own body generate the cahones need to make a real comback, it was 75% you which still would have put you in a good spot in coming back, But that added boost, well that sealed it for you and your selfishness for the here and now moment, and for the cameras...It'll sort itself out later type crap. I admired you before this, stay out if you can't take the heat.
"I can be quite cynical and I have a sensitive bullshit meter, and for some reason, Landis still isn't setting off that bullshit meter."
Post a Comment
<< Home